Great Leadership Qualities

[OzMan]

As a kind of expansion on the old topic "Greatest Military Leaders", I would like to know: What are the best qualities that define the greatest leaders? What makes them great leaders? What do you remember about them that makes them stand out?

Also, as part of a small case study I'm performing, who do you think is the greatest (for lack of a better word) military leader in recent years? I mean from post-Vietnam era. What do you like about their leadership style?

[Jack Mehoff]

A combination of authoritarian and charismatic leadership make good leaders. Hitler is a good example.

[Haiw]

Yea but he asked for good MILITARY leadership, and we all know how much he sucked at that...

[NcDeuce]

Mental, Physical, Emotional Attributes.

Conceptual, Interpersonal, Technical, Tactical Skills.

Communications, Decision-making, motivating, planning, executing, assessing, developing, building, learning.

Live by the values: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless-Service, Honor, Integrity, & Personal Courage.


Basically, I think a good military leader or any leader in general is one who is competent, inspiring, fair and broad minded, brave, and straight-forward.

My personal favorites...

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/assets/jb/civil/jb_civil_surrender_1_e.jpg

Robert E. Lee


Get correct views of life, and learn to see the world in its true light. It will enable you to live pleasantly, to do good, and, when summoned away, to leave without regret


They do not know what they say. If it came to a conflict of arms, the war will last at least four years. Northern politicians will not appreciate the determination and pluck of the South, and Southern politicians do not appreciate the numbers, resources, and patient perseverance of the North. Both sides forget that we are all Americans. I foresee that our country will pass through a terrible ordeal, a necessary expiation, perhaps, for our national sins.


The education of a man is never completed until he dies.


http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/sherman/sherman.jpg

William Tecumseh Sherman


There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell.


You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace.

[Haiw]

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/sherman/sherman.jpg
Geez...he some Napoleon wannabee? :lol:

[NcDeuce]

Napoleon was a very short man.

[ogukuo72]

And Napolean lost his war. Sherman both won his battles, and helped to win the war.

I want to differentiate battlefield leadership from strategic leadership. Good strategic leaders:

1. Have strategic vision - knows what needs to be done to win the WAR. This includes understanding how war fits into the entire political context, and how battles and the expenditure of resources effects the home front.

2. Knows how his battles fit into the strategic vision. Battles are risky affairs involving the expenditure of enormous resources. If he has to avoid some battles or retreat, so be it. (e.g. Fabius Maximus) He fights only when the battle contributes to the vision, and he knows he has a better than even chance of winning.

3. Economical - knows how to make the best and most economical use of his resources to reach his objective - and that includes his men's lives. See point 2.

4. Develope, cultivate and assemble the necessary resources. This include his men. He will train them in the way best able to contribute to Point 2 and Point 3. They will be trained and equipped to win a battle at the most economical cost. He will look after their welfare to keep them in the best of health. He will look after their morale to keep them at the tip of combat effectiveness.

General Sherman is an excellent example of a military leader that achieved all four points. We have to divide the battles he fought under the generalship of another (e.g. under General Grant at Chattanooga and Vicksburg) and the battles he fought as an independent command.

Unconstrained as an independent command with overall battlefield management under his control, he demonstrated exceptional generalship.
His March to the Sea of a master demonstration of frugal battles with maximum strategic gains. Understanding the psychological and political aspect of war, his objective was a strategic one - to demonstrate the hollow nature of the Confederacy and the military might of the Union, thus undermining decisively the political will of the Confederacy to continue war.

By marching along different lines of approaches, threatening two different target cities, then striking unexpectedly at a third one, he rarely have to fight battles, thus preserving his resources. His enemies, on the other hand, were throughly confused and wasted what limited resources they had in chasing his shadow, and were never in the right place to stop him.

By the end of his march, he had decisively undermined the morale of the Confederacy, as well as weakened it strategically by destroying essential war material, digging up critical logistical and communications networks, laying waste to economic resources, and creating political instability by destroying the sense of security in the general population. This created the condition for the final Union victory.

[Russian Texan]

Basically, I think a good military leader or any leader in general is one who is competent, inspiring, fair and broad minded, brave, and straight-forward

You mean like you? :)

[Haiw]

usa320 can you come here to bring up the animated 'PWNED' image? ;)

[NcDeuce]

Also, as part of a small case study I'm performing, who do you think is the greatest (for lack of a better word) military leader in recent years? I mean from post-Vietnam era. What do you like about their leadership style?

Post-Vietnam...

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0211/images/Sloyan04s.jpg


Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.


One of the fondest expressions around is that we can't be the world's policeman. But guess who gets called when somebody needs a cop.


The Commander in the field is always right and the rear echelon is always wrong, unless proven otherwise. [Regarding the leadership failure in Somalia, 1993]

[OzMan]

TF160, what do you like specifically about Powell? What about his style of leadership makes him your favorite?

Anyone else got any any suggestions?

[Roger Rabbit]

Respect and trust. With those then people will follow you.

[NcDeuce]

TF160, what do you like specifically about Powell? What about his style of leadership makes him your favorite?

Anyone else got any any suggestions?

Well you have to admire the man for everything he has accomplished.

He was born to poor Jamaican immigrant parents, gew up in the Bronx, and climbed the social ladder from having nothing to becoming the first African American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and later the First African American Secretary of State.

He never looked to the military as a career until he was in college and discovered the ROTC program. His grades shot up from C's to straight A's. Powell's damage control skills can be seen throughout his career, starting in Vietnam.

Played a large part in the successes of Panama, and Iraq. He later retired from the position in 1993...can you blame him? Damn Clinton.

And you can go on forever...

[Jack Mehoff]

Colin Powell is a fine leader. I vote for him in a hearbeat if he decided to run for president.

[Ratamacue]

I think Colin Powell, given the chance that he'd run for President, could be the first African-American President in history.

[stateofequilibrium]

Yes, Robert E. Lee is a personal favorite of mine.. 'marse Robert. Perhaps he never made as big of an impression as Alexander the Great, Caesar, or Napoleon, but then again he was not a conqueror.

You really do though have to sympathize with the poor man. On the one hand he committed his life to the United States, rose quickly and steadily through the ranks time after time displaying bravery and ingenuity, and following an oath to his country he took to heart. Then when his state broke away he was offered command of the Union forces to march against the Southern states.. it must have been the hardest choice any man had to make in his position.

I think in the end it was the right choice.. thanks to his constant mockery of Union Commanders (until Grant decided to pay the butcher's bill).. I don't think another civil war will be fought for a looong looong time. And if it does happen, let's make sure we have the South on our side this time and hope the breakaway state is perhaps liberal California =)

[ogukuo72]

Yes, Robert E. Lee is a personal favorite of mine.. 'marse Robert. Perhaps he never made as big of an impression as Alexander the Great, Caesar, or Napoleon, but then again he was not a conqueror.


Lee is a good general, especially when he has good subordinates like Jackson under him, but I do not think he is a GREAT general. In fact, I will not rank Alexander the Great and Napolean as GREAT generals either, despite their fearsome reputation. Of those named, only Julius Caesar could be said to have achieved his political objectives through his military campaigns. The others won their battles, but never achieved their political objectives.

Sherman, Wellington, Africanus, and Philip II are all better generals because they know how to use battles to achieve ultimate political victory.

[Longbranch]

Powell's damage control skills can be seen throughout his career, starting in Vietnam.
Was being part of the Mai Lai Massacre cover-up an example of his damage control skills?

[Jack Mehoff]

Powell's damage control skills can be seen throughout his career, starting in Vietnam.
Was being part of the Mai Lai Massacre cover-up an example of his damage control skills?

um...wtf? You are accusing Colin Powell took part in My Lai massacre? Please do not open your mouth if you are stupid.

[hahaha]

Ordering your men to do something that you wouldn't think twice about doing yourself.

[stateofequilibrium]

Sherman, Wellington, Africanus, and Philip II are all better generals because they know how to use battles to achieve ultimate political victory.

To be fair, Lee didn't HAVE a political agenda except to get the North to broker for a peace deal.. he got beaten by overwhelming attrition and perhaps fate.

Caesar most definately had a political agenda when leading his troops through Gaul and then against Pompey.

[Longbranch]

You are accusing Colin Powell took part in My Lai massacre? Please do not open your mouth if you are stupid.
I did not say Powell took part in the massacre, I said he played a part in trying to cover-up the massacre.

[Guttorm]

The qualities a good leader needs is first of all the ability to relate to his men and earn their respect.

You can have an ass full of stars, but that won't get you respect.